SIKANDAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 26.8.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 257/2011, whereby the application filed by the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 seeking permission to compromise the offence under Section 324 IPC before the trial Court has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in this case the offence under Section 324 IPC was committed in the year 2007. He submits that though by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment Act), 2005 (No. 25/2005), the offence under Section 324 IPC was excluded from the Table of Compoundable Offences shown under Section 320 Cr.P.C. by Section 28(a) of the said Amending Act but it is contended that the said amendment in the Table, by virtue of Section 28(1) of the Amendment Act, was not notified, thus it is submitted that since the amendment, whereby Section 324 IPC was taken out from the purview of compoundable offence, was not notified, therefore it is prayed that as on the date when the offence was committed, i.e. in the year 2007, the position of Section 320 Cr.P.C. continued as it was prior to the Amending Act of 2005. Thus, it is submitted that as in the year 2007 the offence under Section 324 IPC continued to be a compoundable offence, the learned Appellate Judge has erred in rejecting the application for compounding the offence under Section 324 IPC by holding that the offence under Section 324 IPC was not compoundable after 23.6.2006.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2008 3 SCC(Cri) 699 for the purpose of canvassing the argument that the amendment to Section 320 Cr.P.C., as per the Amendment Act No. 25/2005 has not been brought to force, i.e. the same has not been notified and thus the offence under Section 324 IPC still continued to be compoundable by the permission of the Court on the date on which the offence was committed, i.e. in the year 2007.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.